"Since I left my job at Amazon I have spent a lot of time reading great source code. Having exhausted the insanely good idSoftware pool, the next thing to read was one of the greatest game of all time: Duke Nukem 3D and the engine powering it named 'Build'. It turned out to be a difficult experience: The engine delivered great value and ranked high in terms of speed, stability and memory consumption but my enthousiasm met a source code controversial in terms of organization, best practices and comments/documentation. This reading session taught me a lot about code legacy and what helps a software live long." Hail to the king, baby.

"Code being difficult to maintain can be the result of a bad programmer doing the job, where the code itself isn't the actual problem but rather your lack of ability is."

You are throwing around these underhanded insults implying that we're bad coders if a piece of code gives us trouble, but the truth is that even good coders have trouble with bad code. What's the deal with wanting to defend bad code?

"Code being difficult to maintain can be the result of a bad programmer doing the job, where the code itself isn't the actual problem but rather your lack of ability is."

You are throwing around these underhanded insults implying that we're bad coders if a piece of code gives us trouble, but the truth is that even good coders have trouble with bad code. What's the deal with wanting to defend bad code?

I've done no such thing. If you've taken offense then it's due to your own lack of confidence in your ability because I at _no point_ called into question your ability, or any other specific individual here. That is why I quote "you". That means the comment is not directed towards any single individual, but rather anyone who the comment applies to. No need to get upset Alfman, unless the shoe fits. But then that wouldn't be my problem.

And again, I'm not defending "bad" code. I'm stating the fact that "bad" code is often merely subjective. And the fact that sometimes a persons difficulty in maintaining code is the result of the maintainers inability or inexperience as a coder in general or in a specific area, and not the actual code itself. No sane person with half a clue would disagree with either of those statements.

"I've done no such thing. If you've taken offense then it's due to your own lack of confidence in your ability because I at _no point_ called into question your ability, or any other specific individual here. That is why I quote 'you'. That means the comment is not directed towards any single individual, but rather anyone who the comment applies to. No need to get upset Alfman, unless the shoe fits. But then that wouldn't be my problem."

You can quit this stupid double speak now.

"And the fact that sometimes a persons difficulty in maintaining code is the result of the maintainers inability or inexperience as a coder in general or in a specific area, and not the actual code itself. No sane person with half a clue would disagree with either of those statements."

*Sometimes* that is true, but your initial claim that code and designs can't be bad as long as they work was completely naive. There's nothing more to say here since this is obviously true to everyone else.